Rating: 
Summary: A comment about one customer reviewer here
Review: I would like to call attention to the fact that one of the reviewers here (the one from Santee, California) is from the same municipalty that the ICR is located in. I wonder if that reviewer works for the ICR. Hugh Ross is more honest in all his old earth creatioinist studies than almost all (if not all) of the YEC's at the ICR, and other young earth creaionists organizations like it, are in their young earth ones. The young earthers are often so desperate for info supporting their cause they often constanly talk about the Piltdown man forgery and Nebraska Man (both of which the scientific communities discarded a long time ago) as if these two mistakes disprove all of evolutionary studies. Mr. Ross represents the school of old earth creationism, which is usually above making such cheap shots at the scientific communities. In this book he, without resorting to any deception, makes a good biblical case for an old earth. And to another poster (if it's not the same one). God's promise was more not to send another flood TO DESTROY ALL OF HUMANKIND, rather than just not to send another flood period. So God's promise is no firm evidence that the flood of Noah was worldwide.
Rating:
Summary: You OWE it to yourself to read this book!
Review: If you are a scientist or a Christian who has always wanted a way to reconcile your faith and science, please read this book. It is a very exciting and stimulating work which will help you realize that Faith and Science are not mutually incompatible. Also, for you who are Young Earth creationists, please refrain from excessive criticism of this book and author. In my opinion he has addressed very honestly the conflicts between science and Scripture and doesn't deserve unloving condemnation. I think that when we all find out the truth after our lives are over (I believe we will!) I suspect that Dr. Ross will not be far from the truth, at least considering all the evidence we have at this time.
Rating: 
Summary: I am not impressed.
Review: In his other books Hugh Ross has some fascinating insights into science and the nature of God (e.g. Beyond The Cosmos). This book, however, is a real stinker.The entire book has a condescending and sarcastic tone to it, as if to say he is here to save you from those poor, medieval, young-earth creationists. At the same time he rides the coat tails of these same creationists who pioneered modern scientific creationism fifty years ago without giving them the credit they deserve. All of the positive evidence he cites for supernatural creation, both here and in other books, were first articulated by these young-earth creationists long before Dr. Ross was old enough to know which end of the telescope to look through. This aspect of the book makes it dull and insulting. Dr. Ross' historical conclusions about the teachings of the early church fathers are false. On page 24 of Creation and Time, Dr. Ross states: "A MAJORITY of those who wrote on the subject rejected the concrete interpretation of the Genesis creation days as six consecutive twenty-four-hour periods" (emphasis added). However, if one would only bother to read the church fathers Dr. Ross lists--in context--you would discover that they actually supported literal days. Dr. Ross misrepresents no fewer than nine of the fourteen church fathers he lists. Dr. Ross deliberately misrepresents the arguments and positions of the young-earth creationists he 'refutes.' This is a classic straw-man tactic. I have read every creationist work Dr. Ross refers to in this book and then some, so I know what I am talking about. One example of Dr. Ross' deliberate deception may be found in his 'reply' to the decay in the earth's magnetic field as evidence of a young earth. During the 1980's creationists realized that the evidence of past magnetic reversals was overwhelming, so Dr. Barnes's theories were reexamined. Dr. Russell Humphreys developed a revised model for magnetic reversals that was widely accepted by creationists long before Dr. Ross wrote Creation and Time. Furthermore, Dr. Humphreys mailed a copy of his work to Dr. Ross in 1991 which Dr. Ross acknowledged receiving in a letter to Dr, Humphreys dated July 17, 1991. Since Dr. Ross knew about Dr. Humphreys revised model, then why didn't he acknowledge this fact three years later in Creation and Time? This is not an isolated instance. As a matter of fact, Dr. Ross makes a distinct practice misrepresenting young-earth creationists not only in this book, but throughout all of the materials I have seen produced by him. This aspect of this and other works by Dr. Ross destroys any credibility he may have in my eyes. I will not waste my time with an author with whom I must double-check every thing he says because he is either too lazy or too dishonest to represent the facts accurately. I hope for the former, but my experience suggests the latter. For an in-depth critique of Dr. Ross book, I would suggest that one read another book also called "Creation and Time-A Report on the Progressive Creationist Book by Hugh Ross" by Van Bebber and Taylor (ISBN 1-877775-0209), 1994, Eden Publications. Hugh Ross is only impressive to those who are woefully ignorant of the other side of this debate.
Rating: 
Summary: Taking the battle to the Young Earth Creationists
Review: Ross argues that the gap between inorganic components and organic life is too unlikely to have been bridged. He indirectly cites calculations by Dr. Harold J. Morowitz that seem to indicate that the gap between the inorganic and the organic to be enormously improbable. However, what he doesn't mention is that Morowitz (who served as a witness, in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 1982, 529 F. Supp. 1255, where he denounced creationists use of the second law of thermodynamics) was using his calculations to describe a different phenomena than Ross. Morowitz's calculations do not deal with the odds of life first forming but the probability of life having enough energy to grow in an environment of thermal equilibrium. The earth has never been a system in thermal equilibrium!!! The earth is an open system (not in thermal equilibrium) taking in energy from the sun. If Ross had been responsible enough to look up the original source instead of citing a secondary source, he would have realized that Morowitz's data is not relevant to origins. Next Ross argues that chance can not account for the formation of life and uses the example of shaking pieces of a wristwatch. The watch will not self assemble, Ross correctly concludes. However, biological organisms and inorganic chemicals differ from pieces of a wristwatch. For example, watch components are not capable of:
1. Having chemical affinity or reactions with other chemicals.
2. Being altered by environmental conditions (i.e. minerals, lightning, solar and geothermal energy).
3. Polymerization (i.e. mineral induced).
4. Being effected by ribozymes.
5. Molecular cooperation (i.e. between RNA and polypeptides).
6. Being influenced through time by the combined factors listed above, natural selection, extinction, genetic flow, mutations, genetic and reproductive isolation, genetic recombination, and chance. Note: These are not mutually exclusive categories.
It is highly improbable, for example, that trillions of hydrogen atoms would hook up with trillions of oxygen atoms, by chance, to form all the water on earth. I bet the odds would be more than 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1. However, there is more than chance at work in the universe. There are chemical and physical laws at work! Water doesn't just form by chance it is aided by polar covalent bonds. Now what are the mathematical odds that such a water molecule would be able to climb a tree's root system by chance? Much greater if the cohesion of water molecules is taken into account. The fact that ribozymes can catalyze RNA splicing is not due to chance. The fact that clay and other minerals can concentrate amino acids and other organic monomers is not due to chance. It occurs because the monomers bind to electrically charged areas on clay particles. In short, man made artifacts (i.e. wristwatch) are not comparable to biological organisms or inorganic chemicals in a natural world affected by physical laws and chance is not the only mechanism, which was responsible for the formation of life. Buy a biology text book if you want answers concerning life's origins.
Rating:
Summary: Creation Myth and the Misuse of Science
Review: Ross argues that the gap between inorganic components and organic life is too unlikely to have been bridged. He indirectly cites calculations by Dr. Harold J. Morowitz that seem to indicate that the gap between the inorganic and the organic to be enormously improbable. However, what he doesn't mention is that Morowitz (who served as a witness, in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 1982, 529 F. Supp. 1255, where he denounced creationists use of the second law of thermodynamics) was using his calculations to describe a different phenomena than Ross. Morowitz's calculations do not deal with the odds of life first forming but the probability of life having enough energy to grow in an environment of thermal equilibrium. The earth has never been a system in thermal equilibrium!!! The earth is an open system (not in thermal equilibrium) taking in energy from the sun. If Ross had been responsible enough to look up the original source instead of citing a secondary source, he would have realized that Morowitz's data is not relevant to origins. Next Ross argues that chance can not account for the formation of life and uses the example of shaking pieces of a wristwatch. The watch will not self assemble, Ross correctly concludes. However, biological organisms and inorganic chemicals differ from pieces of a wristwatch. For example, watch components are not capable of:
1. Having chemical affinity or reactions with other chemicals.
2. Being altered by environmental conditions (i.e. minerals, lightning, solar and geothermal energy).
3. Polymerization (i.e. mineral induced).
4. Being effected by ribozymes.
5. Molecular cooperation (i.e. between RNA and polypeptides).
6. Being influenced through time by the combined factors listed above, natural selection, extinction, genetic flow, mutations, genetic and reproductive isolation, genetic recombination, and chance. Note: These are not mutually exclusive categories.
It is highly improbable, for example, that trillions of hydrogen atoms would hook up with trillions of oxygen atoms, by chance, to form all the water on earth. I bet the odds would be more than 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1. However, there is more than chance at work in the universe. There are chemical and physical laws at work! Water doesn't just form by chance it is aided by polar covalent bonds. Now what are the mathematical odds that such a water molecule would be able to climb a tree's root system by chance? Much greater if the cohesion of water molecules is taken into account. The fact that ribozymes can catalyze RNA splicing is not due to chance. The fact that clay and other minerals can concentrate amino acids and other organic monomers is not due to chance. It occurs because the monomers bind to electrically charged areas on clay particles. In short, man made artifacts (i.e. wristwatch) are not comparable to biological organisms or inorganic chemicals in a natural world affected by physical laws and chance is not the only mechanism, which was responsible for the formation of life. Buy a biology text book if you want answers concerning life's origins.
Rating:
Summary: Reasonable overview to a complex issue
Review: Ross has done a very nice job at providing an overview that covers much of the relevant information related to the time of creation issue. Though I've heard much of this before, it was nice to have it all in one easily readable book. He presents information from a variety of perspectives including: historical views, Biblical analysis, theological, and scientific. He also deals with some of the errors young earthers have made, and he does so very politely. Anyone reading the book with an open mind (vs. looking for a hole in his argument or with an established dogmatic position) would have to acknowledge that he presents some very reasonable information to consider. As a Christian that has never held dogmatically to either view, (used to lean young earth, but 10 years ago started leaning old earth) Ross didn't change my view. But he did make me more willing to express it, even to those more fundamentalistic friends that I know who are very condemming toward anyone not holding a young earth view. The only area where I felt Ross was a little weak is that he didn't do a thorough job of tracing the history of various Genesis interpretations. He briefly showed a few of the early church fathers views, but there is a lot more information he could have covered and I think it would have strengthened his presentation. Early Jewish writings conclusively show that a literal 24-hour interpretation has been far from obvious to Hebrew scholars throughout history. If Hebrew scholars through antiquity weren't sure of the proper interpretation, I sure wonder how so many people today "know" they interpret it correctly.
Rating:
Summary: They're Not Listening
Review: Ross, an obviously devout and committed Christian, calls for tolerance, reason and dialog, and offers sound evidence, both Scriptural and scientific, that the supposed gulf between scientific and Biblical truth doesn't exist. His opponents, deaf to his pleas, continue to attack him in a manner better suited to the Taliban than to Christians. They seek to maintain the gulf, even at the expense of the Truth and decency. Whatever happened to "Love thy Neighbor?" I find their behavior disgusting, irresponsible, and embarrassing to their fellow Christians, including me. Much like Ross, I am a Christian who is also a Ph.D. physicist. I can't help but agree with Ross since I have made many of the same observations, independently. Read the book with an eye for learning, not for finding fault. You might actually learn something.
Rating:
Summary: Problems with Ross's local-flood ideas
Review: Some people today (like Mr. Ross) are claiming that Noah's flood did not cover the entire Earth nor all the mountains of the day. Further, they claim that Noah and the animals floated on a shallow, temporary inland sea caused by the flood, somehow covering only the Mesopotamian region. Thus, they must claim that the Earth's entire human population was limited to this area, or that not all humans were killed in the flood. Is there really biblical evidence for claims of this nature? Keep in mind that local Noah's flood/old earth advocates postulate the earth before the flood as essentially identical to today's earth. 1. The Depth and Duration of the Flood. The flood waters covered the mountains to a depth of at least the draft of Noah's Ark (Genesis 7:19,20). Today's mountains in the Ararat region include Mount Ararat which rises to 17,000 feet in elevation. The flood lasted for a year, peaking 150 days after it started (7:11, 8:3,4), then it began to abate. A year-long mountain-covering flood is not a local flood. Noah was in the ark for more than a year, not just 40 days (Genesis 8:14). 53 weeks is absurdly long to stay in the ark for a local flood since dry land would have been just over the horizon. After the flood waters had been going down for 4 months, the dove could still find no suitable ground (Genesis 8:9). This does not seem to fit the circumstances for a local flood in which the dove could fly to dry land. However, these situations are consistent if the Flood was global. Note that the Bible [Psalms 104:6-9, NIV] talks about mountains rising (in connection with God's rainbow promise, so after the Flood). Everest has marine fossils at its peak. Therefore, the mountains before the Flood are not those of today. There is enough water in the oceans so that, if all the surface features of the earth were evened out, water would cover the earth to a depth of 2.7 km (1.7 miles). This is not enough to cover mountains the height of Everest, but it shows that the pre-Flood mountains could have been several kilometers high and still be covered. 2. The Physical Causes for the Flood. The Bible explains that the breaking open of "all the fountains of the great deep" and the "windows of heaven" (7:11) were the primary causes. The "deep" is the ocean; thus the "great deep" could hardly be the cause of a limited local flood. The "windows" seem to refer to the "waters above the (atmospheric) firmament" (1:7). These were global causes, producing a global effect. 3. The Need for an Ark. Noah was given many years of warning, long enough to walk anywhere on earth. The animals also would have lived globally and so could have migrated anywhere. There was no need for an Ark if the flood was local. The Ark's size, big enough to carry two (or seven for some) of each land-dwelling, air-breathing animal, testifies for a global flood. Building such a huge ship for a local flood for which there was ample warning would be ludicrous. 4. Destruction of All Mankind. The flood's primary purpose was to destroy sinful mankind. While the earth's preflood population is not given, reasonable assumptions based on Biblical data for average family size, life spans, and age of parent at time of first-born yield a population far in excess of the maximum mesopotamian population. The earth was "filled with violence" (6:11-13), and while this may have included animal violence, it certainly included human violence. An earth filled with violence would necessitate an earth filled with people. Only a global flood could accomplish its primary purpose. Not only were violent inhabitants under condemnation, the earth itself was to be destroyed (6:13). The word for "earth" was the same word as used in the creation account (1:1). Surely it means the planet, not just a local area. It boggles the mind to believe that after 16 centuries, no-one would have migrated to other parts outside of Mesopotamia. Or that people living on the periphery of such a local Flood would not have moved to the adjoining high ground rather than be drowned. 5. A "Cataclysm," Not a Mere Flood. Both Hebrew (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament) use words to describe Noah's flood which are different than the ordinary words for flood. In this way, Noah's flood was represented as a totally unique occurrence. [Hebrew--"Mabbool", Greek--"Kataklusmos" (cataclysm)]." 6. Promise of No More Floods. At the end of the flood, God promised that there would never again be such a flood (9:15). But there have been many floods, even regional floods, especially in mesopotamia, since Noah's day. If this was merely a local flood, then God broke His promise, and the rainbow covenant means nothing. 7. The Testimony of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ compared the days immediately prior to His second coming to the days prior to the flood. He reminded us that "the flood came and destroyed them all" (Luke 17:27). The coming judgment will be similarly extensive. If the flood in Noah's day was local, people living outside the area survived, even though they, too, were sinners. This gives great hope to end-time sinners. Will they be able to escape the coming fiery judgment on sin? 8. The Testimony of Peter. Peter also wrote of the coming judgment of the entire heavens and earth (II Peter 3:10-12). He based his argument on the historical facts that the creation was of the entire earth (v.5) and that the flood overflowed the entire earth (v.6), causing it to perish. If the flood was only local, does this imply that only a portion of the earth will "melt with fervent heat" (v.10)? Furthermore, the entire creation will be fully renewed, replaced by "a new heavens and a new earth" (v.13). The local flood idea produces theological nonsense. Recommended reading: "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study" by John Woodmorappe.
Rating:
Summary: What do the Hebrew language experts have to say?
Review: The Bible uses allegory, figures of speech and other literary devices on occasion. Often this is obvious, but occasionally scholars disagree on whether a passage is literal or symbolic. But is this the case in Genesis 1-11? The answer is a resounding "no". There is no way in which the Hebrew text of Genesis 1-11 can mean anything other than what the fresh-faced child, picking it up for the first time without preconceptions, has always seen as obvious. What do the Hebrew grammarians, lexicographers and linguists have to say about the various attempts to reinterpret the clear meaning of scripture to fit in with the popular philosophies of the day? The following is an extract from a letter written to David C.C. Watson on April 23, 1984, by Professor James Barr, who was at the time Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford. Please note that Professor Barr, consistent with his neo-orthodox views, does not believe that Genesis is literally true, he is just telling us, openly and honestly, what the language means. Professor Barr said, "Probably, so far as l know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the 'days' of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know." There are many theologians (as opposed to Hebrew language experts) who insist on long days, for example. But the above makes it clear that it is hardly likely to be the text itself that leads them to this conclusion. Rather, it is almost certainly the desire to accommodate and harmonize opinions and world views (in this case, the idea of long geological ages) which arise from outside Scripture. Of course, arising from outside Scripture does not necessarily make anything wrong; but in this case, the clear, unmistakable teaching of the scriptural text is completely incompatible with, even opposed to, the extra-biblical viewpoint we are considering. It is, therefore, completely unacceptable to claim that Scripture may actually be teaching this view! Faced with such a unanimous consensus of scholarly linguistic opinion (backed by the common sense understanding of countless millions of Christians through the ages), it is no longer intellectually honest to say that the issue of the time and mode of creation (or the related issue of global versus local flood) is in the same category as disagreements over mode of baptism, church government, or prophecy. Disagreements over these latter issues arise from different understandings of Scripture itself, not from seeking to accommodate (or to defuse debate over) a world view that directly opposes a teaching of Scripture which is unanimously declared by experts to be the plain meaning of the text! I suggest that the only intellectually honest approach for a Christian is either to believe what the writer of Genesis is saying, or reject it as untrue. To disbelieve it brings the following problems: 1. How can you know which other parts of Scripture are in error as well--that is, how can you reliably know anything at all about Christianity? 2. What about the New Testament evidence that Jesus and the Apostles (including Paul) regarded Genesis 1-11 as inspired Scripture, giving us 'true truth' about historical characters and events? 3. What happens to the very basis of the Gospel - that is, the Fall into sin, death and bloodshed of the whole creation for which the Saviour shed His blood in death (I Corinthians 15:21, 22; Romans 5:12; Romans 8:19-22)? Those who insist that the days could be millions of years often forget that these "millions of years", in the popular view, are represented by layers of fossils which are interpreted not as the results of the biblical Flood, but as creatures having lived (with struggle/pain/bloodshed) and died before anyone called Adam could have appeared. To put it simply, there were Genesis "days" before man appeared and if you read the days as "ages" (remember that these "ages" are said to be shown by layers containing dead things called fossils) you've just put death and bloodshed before Adam! If the reader is by now feeling despair, the answer to the dilemma is to look again at the modern world view you may have been trying to harmonize with Scripture. It is not--it cannot by definition be--based on the scientific method (repeatable testing and observation). It is based on faith in the opinions of men who were not there at the beginning, and who are part of a humanity in rebellion against its Maker. Finally, there is a large amount of scientific evidence consistent with a recent, six-day creation and a global flood. To accept, by faith, the biblical statement "Thy Word is true from the beginning" (Psalm 119:160) is a reasonable position, which reasonable people, including large numbers of highly qualified scientists, have accepted. For additional information, I recommend visiting the "Answers in Genesis", "Institute for Creation Research" and "True Origin" websites. Also, I'd recommend picking up a copy of books like, "Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe" by Steve Austin, "The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods" by John Woodmorappe and "The Revised Quote Book" (available from the Answers in Genesis online book store).
Rating:
Summary: Secular progressivist revision of Genesis
Review: The position of this book is tantamount to rewriting Genesis. Instead of the NIV, KJV, NKJV, NASB, RSV there is the new
Secular Progressivist Accomodated Modernized version:
"In the beginning billions of years ago, God progressively created the heavens and earth. After an astronomical timespan, the earth had become formless and void and darkness was on the deep. And the Spirit of God hovered over the waters. And God said 'Let there be light' and over the course of cosmic eons there was light...God called the light Daytime and darkness He called Nighttime. So the darkening and lightening were the First geologic epoch..So the darkening/lighening marked a Second indefinite age..So another dark/light signaled a Third vast pre-historic time passage.
Then God said 'Let there begin to appear lights in the expanse of the sky to divide Daytime from Nighttime and let them begin to be visible for signs to mark new earth-perspective timeframes of seasons, days, years. And eventually it became so.
For God had billions of years prior already made two great lights before the beginning..He had even before that made the stars also. Now God gradually made appear what He had eons beforehand already set in the expanse of sky. Still another dark/light marked a Fourth passage of millions of years...
Thus the heavens and earth and all their vast array over billions of years of galactic natural evolution and geologic progressive supernatural creation were completed.
And on the Seventh geologic epoch of indeterminate millions of years God ended His work and began resting on the Seventh prehistoric age from all His work. Then God blessed the Seventh multimillion-year period which continues to the present time and sanctified it because He rested from all His work of stellar evolution and supernatural geologic creation over a total of billions of years."
Exodus 20:8-11 "Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work but the Seventh Day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God..For in Six geologic ages of multimillions of years the LORD made the heavens and earth, the sea and all that is in them and rested the Seventh prehistoric epoch which is still ongoing. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath epoch and hallowed it."
After reading the secularscience-driven, misguided revisionism of this book and how it offers the thoughtful reader its modernized cosmythologic version of the Creation account, it is with regret to rate it even 1-star.
| 
